DRYVER machines
”). I can see from the photographs in evidence that it was proposed in a quotation from TMB dated 1 April 2014 that each machine would be prominently branded with C’s ICE Logo in red, however, the information sticker giving details of the serial codes, model number etc show the manufacturer TMB’s name, address and logo. The Defendants submit that there is no evidence before me of the physical appearance and branding of the machines actually delivered to C, but I accept Mr Bresnihan’s evidence in cross-examination that the DRYVER machines as delivered were branded with C’s ICE Logo in red. Mr Bresnihan was unshaken in cross-examination that this was the first example of own-product branding that C had undertaken.xii)C says it placed its first order of DRYVER machines in March 2014, offered them to the public from at least June 2014 and sold them from July 2014 to 2017. I accept that evidence. It says that it delivered its first such machines to a customer (Sainsburys) in July 2014, and I am satisfied that, as Mr Bresnihan accepted in cross-examination, no DRYVER machines came into the UK before July 2014. Over the next 3 years the evidence suggests that C sold almost 1700 units, despite, as Mr Bresnihan accepts, the DRYVER machines not being promoted on C’s website.xiii)It was put to Mr Bresnihan in cross-examination that no-one would have known about the DRYVER machines in the market except those of C’s customers who bought them, which he initially agreed to. However, in answer to a question from the Court about whether C had ever shown them to customers who decided not to buy them, Mr Bresnihan said that C must have shown them to its “key customer demographic” to have sold them in some quantity as it did. I accept that evidence. xiv)From 2016, C took the decision to consolidate the look and feel of the branding of the ICE Machines and make the range more cohesive with how they were using the ICE brand elsewhere in the business. They changed manufacturer, and over the next years developed a range of machines which were cohesive in style, manufactured in a silver and black colourway, with C’s ICE Logo in blue prominent on each (“
- INTRODUCTION
- ICE Group
- Killis
- C’s Trade Marks
- D1’s 2015 Trade Marks
- C’s claims in infringement and passing off
- The Defendants’ defence to infringement and passing off
- C’s invalidity case
- The Defendants’ counterclaim
- C’s Defence to Counterclaim
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Trade Mark Invalidity
- Absolute grounds for refusal of registration
- Relative grounds for refusal of registration
- Passing-off in the context of invalidity (section 5(4)(a) TMA)
- Acquiescence
- in use
- WITNESSES
- Darren Marston
- Mark Bresnihan
- Sean Edwards
- Michael Pang
- Alexander Schless
- Tibor Killi
- THE FACTS
- www.ice-clean.com
- ICE Machines
- DRYVER machines
- agreed
- THE ISSUES
- C’s invalidity claims in relation to D1’s 2015 Trade Marks pursuant to sections 47(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) TMA
- Relevant date
- Goodwill
- Misrepresentation
- Damage
- Conclusion in relation to sections 47(2) and 5(4)(a) TMA
- Statutory acquiescence – sections 48 and 5(4)(a) TMA
- Ds’ invalidity claims in relation to C’s Trade Marks
- C’s invalidity claims in respect of D1’s 2020 Trade Marks
- Sections 47(2)(a) and 5(2) TMA – Likelihood of confusion
- Sections 47(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) TMA – use liable to be prevented by Passing Off
- Ss 47(1) and 3(6)TMA – Bad Faith
- Issue 5 – Infringement of C’s Trade Marks
- Infringement by Killis
- Infringement by D3
- Passing-off
- SUMMARY
- Counterclaim
